Purpose: Clinical sequencing emerging in healthcare may result in secondary findings (SFs). Methods: Seventy-four of 6,240 (1.2%) participants who underwent genome or exome sequencing through the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium received one or more SFs from the original ACMG-recommended 56 gene-condition pair list; we assessed clinical and psychosocial actions. Results: The overall adjusted prevalence of SFs in the ACMG 56 genes across the CSER consortium was 1.7%. Initially 32% of the family histories were positive, and post disclosure, this increased to 48%. The average cost of follow-up medical actions per finding up to a 1-year period was $128 (observed, range: $0-$678) and $421 (recommended, range: $141-$1114). Case reports revealed variability in the frequency of and follow-up on medical recommendations patients received associated with each SF gene-condition pair. Participants did not report adverse psychosocial impact associated with receiving SFs; this was corroborated by 18 participant (or parent) interviews. All interviewed participants shared findings with relatives and reported that relatives did not pursue additional testing or care. Conclusion: Our results suggest that disclosure of SFs shows little to no adverse impact on participants and adds only modestly to near term healthcare costs; additional studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Despite rapid technical progress and demonstrable effectiveness for some types of diagnosis and therapy, much remains to be learned about clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) and its role within the practice of medicine. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium includes 18 extramural research projects, one National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) intramural project, and a coordinating center funded by the NHGRI and National Cancer Institute. The consortium is exploring analytic and clinical validity and utility, as well as the ethical, legal, and social implications of sequencing via multidisciplinary approaches; it has thus far recruited 5,577 participants across a spectrum of symptomatic and healthy children and adults by utilizing both germline and cancer sequencing. The CSER consortium is analyzing data and creating publically available procedures and tools related to participant preferences and consent, variant classification, disclosure and management of primary and secondary findings, health outcomes, and integration with electronic health records. Future research directions will refine measures of clinical utility of CGES in both germline and somatic testing, evaluate the use of CGES for screening in healthy individuals, explore the penetrance of pathogenic variants through extensive phenotyping, reduce discordances in public databases of genes and variants, examine social and ethnic disparities in the provision of genomics services, explore regulatory issues, and estimate the value and downstream costs of sequencing. The CSER consortium has established a shared community of research sites by using diverse approaches to pursue the evidence-based development of best practices in genomic medicine.

As genome sequencing technology advances, research is needed to guide decision-making about what results can or should be offered to patients in different clinical settings. We conducted three focus groups with individuals who had prior preconception genetic testing experience to explore perceived advantages and disadvantages of genome sequencing for preconception carrier screening, compared to usual care. Using a discussion guide, a trained qualitative moderator facilitated the audio-recorded focus groups. Sixteen individuals participated. Thematic analysis of transcripts started with a grounded approach and subsequently focused on participants’ perceptions of the value of genetic information. Analysis uncovered two orientations toward genomic preconception carrier screening: “certain” individuals desiring all possible screening information; and “hesitant” individuals who were more cautious about its value. Participants revealed valuable information about barriers to screening: fear/anxiety about results; concerns about the method of returning results; concerns about screening necessity; and concerns about partner participation. All participants recommended offering choice to patients to enhance the value of screening and reduce barriers. Overall, two groups of likely users of genome sequencing for preconception carrier screening demonstrated different perceptions of the advantages or disadvantages of screening, suggesting tailored approaches to education, consent, and counseling may be warranted with each group.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10897-015-9851-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Genomic carrier screening can identify more disease-associated variants than existing carrier screening methodologies, but its utility from patients’ perspective is not yet established. A randomized controlled trial for preconception genomic carrier screening provided an opportunity to understand patients’ decisions about whether to accept or decline testing. We administered a survey to potential genomic carrier screening recipients who declined participation (N = 240) to evaluate their reasons for doing so. Two thirds of women declined participation. We identified major themes describing reasons these individuals declined to participate; the most common were time limitation, lack of interest, not wanting to know the information, and potential cause of worry or anxiety. Most women eligible for genomic carrier screening indicated that their reasons for opting out were due to logistical issues rather than opposing the rationale for testing. As expanded carrier screening and genomic sequencing become a more routine part of clinical care, it is anticipated there will be variable uptake from individuals for this testing. Thus, the advancement of clinical carrier screening from single genes, to expanded screening panels, to an exome- or genome-wide platform, will require approaches that respect individual choice to receive genetic testing for reproductive risk assessment.

In the originally published version of this article, Table 1 unfortunately included c.542G>A instead of c.542G>T. This mutation was correctly notated as c.

Advances in technology and the promise of personalized health care are driving greater use of genome sequencing (GS) for a variety of clinical scenarios. As health systems consider adopting GS, they need to understand the impact of GS on the organization and cost of care. While research has documented a dramatic decrease in the cost of sequencing and interpreting GS, few studies have examined how GS impacts genetic counseling workloads. This study examined the time needed to provide genetic counseling for GS in the context of preconception carrier screening. Genetic counselors prospectively reported on the time spent in the results disclosure process with 107 study participants who were part of the NextGen study. We found that the median time for results disclosure was 64 min (ranged from 5 to 229 min). Preparation work was the most time-consuming activity. Qualitative data from journal entries, debrief interviews with genetic counselors, and detailed case conference notes provided information on factors influencing time for results disclosure and implications for practice. Results suggest that expanded carrier screening could require significant increases in genetic counseling time, unless we are able to generate new resources to reduce preparation work or develop other strategies such as the creation of new models to deliver this type of service.

Whole genome and exome sequencing tests are increasingly being ordered in clinical practice, creating a need for research exploring the return of results from these tests. A goal of the Clinical Sequencing and Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium is to gain experience with this process to develop best practice recommendations for offering exome and genome testing and returning results. Genetic counselors in the CSER consortium have an integral role in the return of results from these genomic sequencing tests and have gained valuable insight. We present seven emerging themes related to return of exome and genome sequencing results accompanied by case descriptions illustrating important lessons learned, counseling challenges specific to these tests and considerations for future research and practice.

BackgroundEvidence-based guidelines recommend that all newly diagnosed colon cancers be screened for Lynch syndrome (LS). Best practices for implementing universal tumor screening have not been extensively studied.PurposeWe interviewed a range of stakeholders in an integrated health care system to identify initial factors that might promote or hinder the successful implementation of a universal (LS) screening program.MethodsWe conducted interviews with health plan leaders, managers, and staff. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis began with a grounded approach and was also guided by the Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM).ResultsWe completed 14 interviews with leaders/managers and staff representing involved clinical and health plan departments. While in general stakeholders supported the concept of universal screening, they identified several internal (organizational) and external (environment) factors that promote/hinder implementation. Facilitating factors included: 1) perceived benefits of screening for patients and organization; 2) collaboration between departments; and 3) availability of organizational resources. Barriers were also found, including: 1) lack of awareness of guidelines; 2) lack of guideline clarity; 3) staffing and program “ownership” concerns; and 4) cost uncertainties. Analysis also revealed nine important infrastructure-type considerations for successful implementation.ConclusionWe found that clinical, laboratory, and administrative departments supported universal tumor screening for LS. Requirements for successful implementation may include interdepartmental collaboration and communication; patient and provider/staff education; and significant infrastructure and resource support related to laboratory processing and systems for electronic ordering and tracking.